Absent that, I am far more willing to accept the ruling of a judge who heard all the evidence over the rantings of someone who claims to know exactly what and how something happened from, what, an 800 word account that raises more questions than it answers.
Would you care to describe in more detail what the "rantings" were and perhaps more particularly the who/where of the someone that "
claims to know exactly what and how something happened"?
Oh wait - you must mean the court and the newspaper!
Court documents said David Blick was riding slightly ahead of Michael Anthony Franklin.....Mr Blick hit a large wooden tree stake that was lying in the bike lane and veered into his friend, causing him to fall off his bike and into the path of an oncoming car.
What I do see is are many claims to know exactly what
didn't happen from er... you. Apparently logical deduction is permitted to some but not to others.
Tell me this Big RR, if the second clown wasn't riding "
slightly behind" and therefore too close to the first clown to avoid the accident, where was he riding - how far back? Put an estimated number on it - you know you can but you won't - because just as #1 rode into a stake he should have seen (it was a duty), #2 was too close to #1 to avoid the collision (which should have been his duty).
In case it's not obvious, I've not once written (I hope I didn't; beat me with a wet noodle if I did) an attack saying that the verdict was wrong...... I've stated that the plaintiff is wrong to do what he did and that the defense lawyer doesn't seem to have made enough of a case for contributory negligence.
Oh wait - I'm not alone.... here's someone who agrees and also DOES challenge the judgement:
Last week's damages order has been a hot topic among the city's cycling community, with many concerned about the possible precedent set by the finding.
"This judgement handed down is preposterous. The duty of care and responsibility of a cyclist in the position described in this instance rests just as much with the following cyclist as it does with the lead cyclist," cyclist Daniel Green told The Canberra Times' cycling blog The Lycra Diaries.
"By drafting very close behind or beside another cyclist, you are putting yourself at greater risk as you can be directly impeded or contacted by that other cyclist. If you are not comfortable and confident with this situation, then do not place yourself in that position."
Other riders said the ACT Government also needed to shoulder some of the blame for the accident, arguing that cycling lanes directly next to cars were a far greater risk to safety than dedicated and physically separated bike paths.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... z3ICtjPERDFor Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
